Saturday, October 2, 2021

A Good Vetting is Long Overdue

I apologize for my absence the past day or so; extenuating circumstances. But Renato is doing some deep fact checking on Dark Lover which I will be posting here. David Bret enjoys accusing me of "hating" the book. I would not go that far but I think a good vetting is long overdue. 

I have previously written how Michael Morris was upset his book was not included in Leider's bibliography. And Bill Self told me he could not finish reading the book because it was "the same old thing" and he did not like the title. 

"They" beat me over the head with Dark Lover when I knew the actual story she entirely missed about the man. And I also was surprised she relied on endless movie magazine fodder and My Private Diary. I found so many factual errors which are forgivable to me because they are in all books.

What I did not find forgivable was her pandering on the "bisexuality is always an option", etc. Based on nothing but innuendo and David Bret's tired old fantasies. 

So stay tuned. 

12 comments:

  1. I'm looking forward to this penetrating look at Dark Lover. Proclaimed as the gospel on most Valentino forums, it is racked with errors and many unsubstantiated rumors that forum admins always rail against...except when it comes to Dark Lover. Using David Bret as a source should be enough of a red flag for anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Never trust DB on anything

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also didn't like the title of Leider's book. Of all the beautiful, incredible facts about Valentino she comes up with "Dark Lover." He wasn't even so dark. She didn't get the Valentino phenomenon or what he meant to the public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. I think the title was a spin-off on the book on John Gilbert titled, "Dark Star". There was also a movie called, "Dark Star".

      Delete
  4. Hallelujah! High time for Leider’s book to receive some genuine scrutiny. The book is nearly two decades old, and in that time there have been major discoveries about Valentino, almost all of them made by Zumaya and Floris. One matter I’ve never understood is why Alberto’s family never made materials available to Leider or authorized her book. Leider travelled to Italy with one of Jean’s daughters and yet “the family” held back documents (later used in the Villalobos dissertation) that would have improved Leider’s book immensely. They could very easily have made Leider the official biographer and equipped her well, but they chose not to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The great grand daughter of Valentino (that’s what she is) probably withheld information because she was planning on writing her own book. She likely wanted to have that material to leverage her own publication that never materialized.

      Delete
    2. She was also not able to share the contents of the probate case file because the only copies they knew of were stolen. I agree she was not sharing material and would not even share Bill Self with me as a source. Its a shame. I think Leider's unquestioning reporting and innuendo was more to her disfavor than the sources she did not access.

      Delete
    3. I am of the opinion that if Villalobos is really Valentino’s great granddaughter, she would be proclaiming it to the skies. I understand that many disagree with me, but that’s OK. It is very probable that she withheld material to strengthen her own efforts. It is regrettable that her sole product is her dissertation, because no one, not even the self-selected protectors of “the family” on the forums, has read it. I agree entirely with Evelyn’s observation that Leider’s near exclusive reliance on fan magazines and inartful indulgence in innuendo greatly compromises the value of her book.

      Delete
    4. Whatever reasons for the family silence, it is impossible for me to dismiss years of research and a body of evidence which as a whole is compelling.

      Delete
    5. Ms. Villalobos did admit to being the great-grand daughter on an Italian site. We posted that here and in the Case Files.

      Delete
  5. I have often wondered why Villalobos rather abruptly gave up her idea of producing a book which would have covered Valentino's life from 1920 up to his death. Was there something she discovered that made her decide that it was not worth revealing? Could it have been the information in those stolen documents?

    ReplyDelete
  6. With all The advantages of being a star în the 1920s, I think I would hate being so misrepresented în the media and în the literature as Rudy was. I understand that was the star System used then, which encouraged ficțional Tales about movie stars, but still... No Wonder Valentino started to hate his public image at some Point, even though he was kind of complicit to it due to studio politics or that it was advantegious for him. I'm happy în a way that starting în the 30s and 40s, movie stars were represented more realistically în the media I would say, more like human being than The God-like stars of The 1920s.
    Because between all The contemporary press releases and The public image of "The latin lover" and The ficțional studio version autobiography, one can barely find glimpses of The real man Rudolph Valentino.

    ReplyDelete